S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER has assailed the order dated 20th Dec. , 1999 passed by stamp Authority, Kaushambhl and also the revislonal order passed in revision preferred against the said order dated 3-6-2003.

( 2 ) FACTS forming background to the challenge are that petitioner purchased Plot No. 117 admeasuring 11 Biswas 19/25 Dhoor situated in village Jodhlilwar Pargana and tahsil Chail district Kaushambhi and Plot no. 330 admeasuring 3 Biswas, 9, 1/10 dhoor situated in village Faridpur Sulempur pargana and Tahsil Chail District Kaushambhi from one Kishan Lal resident of Sulempur. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that klshan Lal sold off his entire share in the land in dispute and petitioner paid stamp duty after assessing valuation thereof in accordance with law.

( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the report of Lekhpal it is clear that 3he land in dispute are situated on the boundaries of two villages. It is also not disputed that one of the village, namely, Jodhliwar is a non-residential village (Ger Chiragi) and further that the land in dispute is an agricultural plot and the same could not be utilised for purposes other than agricultural purpose. Proceedings under S. 47-A were initiated against the petitioner by the S. D. O. Chail District kaushambhi as a sequel to application dated 19-11-1998 made by one Kundan Lal Sahu and conseuqent direction made to the S. D. O. Chail by the Addl. District Magistrate (F. and r.) Kaushambi which culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 20-12-1999. The Impugned order has its grounding in the facts that the District Magistrate had already pegged valuation of the agricultural plots situated in the village as contained in the order dated 3-8-1997 made under the u. P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (in short the stamp Rules, 1997) and that according to Note (2) of the order, in case agricultural land is not transferred in favour of a co-tenure holder or a person having adjoining agricultural plot shall be valued on the basis of per square meter in the same manner as is done as regards the land situated in urban area, semi-urban area and the rural area. A direction was issued by the Stamp authority to pay additional stamp duty of Rs. 18000/- in addition to what was already paid within 15 days. A recall application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that both the plots did not adjoin each other and are situated at the distance of 16 Lathas. A revision preferred before the Addl. Commissioner under S. 56 of the Indian Stamp Act was rejected.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where admittedly, one of the village being a non-residential village and plots in question being agricultural plots which could not be used for residential or any other purposes, the impugned order demanding additional stamp duty on the basis of Note no. (2) of the guidelines formulated by the district Magistrate determining the valuation of certain land and presuming agricultural land to be calculated on the basis of per square meter is highly arbitrary and that the District Magistrate has wrongly fixed the principles of valuation in arbitrary manner, which is contrary to Rr. 3, 4 and 5 of the rules, 1997, apart from being discriminatory and arbitrary. He further urged that note (2) specifically makes it clear that in case sale deed is executed in favour of a co-tenure holder or a person whose plot adjoins the plot, the same shall be treated as agricultural plots but direction that in case sale deed is executed in favour of third person it shall be calculated on the basis of per square meter at par with urban, semi-urban or rural property is highly unreasonable and discriminatory. The learned counsel further submitted that acting on the complaint, the stamp authority hastened to issue notice demanding additional stamp duty without allowing the petitioner to have his say and without affording opportunity of hearing to hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document